"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Highfllyer" wrote in message
...
|
|
| And I never saw much difference between a 172 and a 182 except that the
182
| is considered "high performance" and the 172 isn't. We all know that
"high
| performance" as for the endorsement is a poor joke foisted on the
aviation
| set by politicos with no judgement or sense. When a 180 HP RV-4 that
does
| over 200 mph and cruises nicely at over 180 is NOT "high performance"
and
my
| poor little 4000 pound Stinson Reliant that storms along on a good day
at
| 100 knots is considered to be "high performance" one does have to
wonder.
| Just what kind of "performance" are we talking about anyway? :-)
|

There are also plenty of fast twins with two 200 hp (or less) engines that
are not considered high performance.

Such as...?